Another health care thread.

Isn't Dasani bottled water?

Has anyone ever thought that maybe healthcare costs are increasing, because doctors and hospitals have to offset the costs of medicare and medicaid patients when the government refuses to meet their obligation of reinmbursement. Some medical equipment has a "per-use" cost associated with licensing that doctors still have to pay whether they get reimbursed or not. Or the fact that malpractice insurance is abnormally high with still no tort reform on the horizon. How many attorneys take that 40% or more contigency fee after petitioning huge "pain and suffering" suits from the patient who "can't afford" an attorney?

Has anyone ever thought that maybe healthcare costs are increasing, because doctors and hospitals have to offset the costs of medicare and medicaid patients when the government refuses to meet their obligation of reinmbursement. Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

No. Actually, they're probably just off-setting the costs of their payments to PACs, lobbyists, and ads for their services and ads for certain drugs.

Isn't Dasani bottled water? Originally Posted by Ansley

"Dasani" is Italian for "tap water"

Has anyone ever thought that maybe healthcare costs are increasing, because doctors and hospitals have to offset the costs of medicare and medicaid patients when the government refuses to meet their obligation of reinmbursement. Some medical equipment has a "per-use" cost associated with licensing that doctors still have to pay whether they get reimbursed or not. Or the fact that malpractice insurance is abnormally high with still no tort reform on the horizon. How many attorneys take that 40% or more contigency fee after petitioning huge "pain and suffering" suits from the patient who "can't afford" an attorney? Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

Well we could pay more in taxes so medicare and medicade pay doctors more. Then you could have a thread bitching about that!

As to your second point it is really not much of one. It is a GOP talking point. We capped lawsuits here in Texas, you are from Texas right? ....and I did not see a reduction in prices from doctors. Did you?

As to your second point it is really not much of one. It is a GOP talking point. We capped lawsuits here in Texas, you are from Texas right? ....and I did not see a reduction in prices from doctors. Did you? Originally Posted by WTF

Apparently, there were only two noticeable effects from capping lawsuits: (1) Med Mal Insurance Premiums dropped; and (2) both Plaintiffs and Defendants torts lawyers lost business. The Plaintiffs lawyers losing business was an intended consequence. The Defendants (read "insurance companies") lawyers losing business was an incredible shock to those defendant attorneys. They somehow never believed that their business depended on plaintiffs access to the courts as it existed in pre-tort reform times.

The Defendant attorneys who advocated tort reform were slashing their own tires.

The Defendant attorneys who advocated tort reform were slashing their own tires. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

The law of unintended consequences strikes again!

You won't hear DFW5Traveler pontificate about how tort reform did not lower costs here in Texas.

Isn't Dasani bottled water? Originally Posted by Ansley

Yes, Dasani is a brand of bottled water.

The Plaintiffs lawyers losing business was an intended consequence. The Defendants (read "insurance companies") lawyers losing business was an incredible shock to those defendant attorneys. They somehow never believed that their business depended on plaintiffs access to the courts as it existed in pre-tort reform times.

The Defendant attorneys who advocated tort reform were slashing their own tires. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

The law of unintended consequences strikes again! Originally Posted by WTF

OK, let me see if I've got this straight:

First you say that plaintiff's lawyers have lost business (a clear acknowledgement that tort reform IS working). But then you guys point out the "unintended consequence" that the demand for defense lawyers has declined as well...

...and insinuate that that's somehow a bad thing?

This insurance industry journal laments the fact that reduction to massive liability exposure allows some entities to save money by self-insuring:

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news...2/07/85495.htm

Looks like plaintiff's lawyers, defense lawyers, and insurance companies (at least in the way mentioned in the article) may all take hits if the proper type of tort reform is enacted.

That might be bad for a few special interests, but for everyone else it looks like a win-win-win!

That might be bad for a few special interests, but for everyone else it looks like a win-win-win! Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Word!

CaptainMidnight--Please see my comments:

As to your second point it is really not much of one. It is a GOP talking point. We capped lawsuits here in Texas, you are from Texas right? ....and I did not see a reduction in prices from doctors. Did you? Originally Posted by WTF

The Defendant attorneys who advocated tort reform were slashing their own tires. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

The law of unintended consequences strikes again! Originally Posted by WTF

OK, let me see if I've got this straight:

First you say that plaintiff's lawyers have lost business (a clear acknowledgement that tort reform IS working). This is not necessarily true. "Tort reform" is a misnomer to a system that took away citizens' constitutional rights to the judicial process and limited damages that could be awarded even though the harm outweighed the damages. But I digress. The loss of access to the courts screened out cases that normally would have gone to lawyers. How is it that this country, built on a constitution, can deny the constitutional process? But then you guys point out the "unintended consequence" that the demand for defense lawyers has declined as well... The irony here is that most defense lawyers were for tort reform. They couldn't see that if a person's constitutional right to have his/he grievances litigated was abated, then the defense attys. would also lose business. This never occurred to them.

...and insinuate that that's somehow a bad thing? This makes you sound like a person with one of these viewpoints: (1) all lawyers are bad (until, of course, you need one); or (2) all tort lawsuits are frivolous. In either event, sweeping opinions like this don't make you look very good. Are there bad lawyers? Yes. Are there frivolous lawsuits? Yes. Are all lawyers bad? No. Are all lawsuits frivolous? No. [BTW, just to be on the record, the States' Attorney Generals' lawsuit against the Health Care Reform Law is a frivolous lawsuit, and the lawsuit should be dismissed and the States sanctioned for bringing this frivolous lawsuit.]

This insurance company journal laments the fact that reduction to massive liability exposure allows some entities to save money by self-insuring:

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news...2/07/85495.htm

Looks like plaintiff's lawyers, defense lawyers, and insurance companies may all take hits if the proper type of tort reform is enacted.

That might be bad for a few special interests, but for everyone else it looks like a win-win-win!

As to your second point it is really not much of one. It is a GOP talking point. We capped lawsuits here in Texas, you are from Texas right? ....and I did not see a reduction in prices from doctors. Did you? Originally Posted by WTF

Except, that, as WTF points out, there have been no reduction in prices from health care providers. So it is NOT a win-win-win. It is only a win-win-win if savings are passed on to me. Unless, of course, YOU work in the health care industry. Then you have engaged in theft. You are keeping the kinds of profits you made pre-tort reform, and refusing to lower your prices based on the savings you have seen from tort reform.
Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Except, that, as WTF points out, there have been no reduction in prices from health care providers. So it is NOT a win-win-win. It is only a win-win-win if savings are passed on to me. Unless, of course, YOU work in the health care industry. Then you have engaged in theft. You are keeping the kinds of profits you made pre-tort reform, and refusing to lower your prices based on the savings you have seen from tort reform. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

You can't say that costs didn't decrease. The underlying trend in costs is 10-15% a year, so if costs went up 9% instead of 13%, that is a 4% reduction. The fact that your premium didn't increase doesn't mean you didn't get a reduction.

The law of unintended consequences strikes again!

You won't hear DFW5Traveler pontificate about how tort reform did not lower costs here in Texas. Originally Posted by WTF

I'll defer to CaptainMidnights post, thank you!!!

OK, let me see if I've got this straight:

First you say that plaintiff's lawyers have lost business (a clear acknowledgement that tort reform IS working). But then you guys point out the "unintended consequence" that the demand for defense lawyers has declined as well...

...and insinuate that that's somehow a bad thing?

This insurance industry journal laments the fact that reduction to massive liability exposure allows some entities to save money by self-insuring:

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news...2/07/85495.htm

Looks like plaintiff's lawyers, defense lawyers, and insurance companies (at least in the way mentioned in the article) may all take hits if the proper type of tort reform is enacted.

That might be bad for a few special interests, but for everyone else it looks like a win-win-win! Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

You can't say that costs didn't decrease. The underlying trend in costs is 10-15% a year, so if costs went up 9% instead of 13%, that is a 4% reduction. The fact that your premium didn't increase doesn't mean you didn't get a reduction. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Yeah, but the whole idea was to pass savings onto the consumer. Didn't happen. Just saying...

This makes you sound like a person with one of these viewpoints: (1) all lawyers are bad (until, of course, you need one) Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Nope. My own father is a lawyer! (Although in his mid 80s and long retired.) He is a fine and honorable man.

(2) all tort lawsuits are frivolous. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Never said that! (Although, quite obviously, a lot of them are -- since our dysfunctional system encourages them.) And the proliferation of such lawsuits forces physicians to practice defensive medicine in a way that imposes costs on all of us.

[BTW, just to be on the record, the States' Attorney Generals' lawsuit against the Health Care Reform Law is a frivolous lawsuit, and the lawsuit should be dismissed and the States sanctioned for bringing this frivolous lawsuit.] Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Really?

(That's your opinion. It's certainly not shared by everyone.)

These lawsuits may or may not succeed, but I hardly see how they're frivolous. For instance, one key point is that -- while the Constitution allows the regulation of interstate commerce -- it cannot regulate something that's not commerce. How can the government force you to buy something you don't want from a private entity?

If we start sliding down that slope, what's next? Can a bunch of political hacks decide to force you to buy a GM car?

In either event, sweeping opinions like this don't make you look very good. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Now you, of all people, are accusing someone of posting something that doesn't make him "look very good?"

Wow.

I don't really think you want to go there. Aren't you the guy who, earlier in this thread, gratuitously insulted another poster by hurling a Nazi epithet and posting the image of a swastika?